~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Did the Church which Christ Established Come with an Expiration Date?

Since, nobody has contributed anything today, I thought I would just throw this one out there so that we do not have a day without a post at all. I apologize if it is not written well as I put this together rather hastily.

++++

There is a popular and recurrent theme amongst many non-Catholic Christians that the promises given to Peter and Christ’s gift to him of the keys (to bind and loose), is not indicative of an office per se but a one time gift to Peter and that when Peter died so did the keys vanish with him. Likewise, using the same logic, the powers given to the Apostles after Christ breathed on them and gave them the power to forgive sins was also buried with them at their deaths. Thereby, any Christian Church is no better than any other as nobody has a special gift of the Holy Spirit to lead them to all truths. It died when the apostles died and its a great way to avoid any notion of there being any reliable and lasting authority in the practice and teaching of Christianity no matter the claims.

I like to be logical about these things so here is what bothers me about such notions.

If that is the case then all churches have become corrupted in their belief, teachings and their practices; as fallen creatures, men have a habit of doing that. There is thereby no inerrant authority to pronounce on a doctrine and there is no authority to stop the next generation from altering or actually opposing what was taught previously. There is neither a way to evaluate one church against another nor the changes that are on-going that may and do overturn previous teaching. It is simply ‘growth’ and ‘development’ due to the times and each church has a right to do as it sees fit. Even if people sit up and claim that they are not syncretists or believers in relativism it is all that is left unless an authority is still alive and working in this world.

If we believe that Christ sent us the Holy Spirit to dwell in the Church and to lead it to all Truth then Christ let us down or the Holy Spirit decided to lead a large variety of separate beliefs even though they hold contrary doctrines and teachings. That would make the Holy Spirit capable of blessing the notion that 2+2=4 in one church and 2+2=5 in another church or any other novel answer that a church might come up with. Now that kind of authority is not authority at all but permissiveness which claims that error is on a par with truth. And I doubt that is what Christ had in mind when He said that He would not leave us as orphans; can it really mean that he’ll support whatever anybody wants to believe in their own version of Christianity?

Sadly, if these gifts died with the Apostles, then the Nicene Creed and the Canon of Scripture were simply unauthorized man-made decisions that have no actual authority to compel one to believe them. And if we do somehow believe these for some personal reason, there is no authoritative reason that each of us should understand and interpret their meaning in the same way. A free for all ensues religiously and we are really no better off than the personal preferences that the pagans had for the gods of their choice. We are free to do as we like and nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Its only defensible in as good as are the apologists of each particular church or individual if they think that a personal belief, without a church, is all that is needed. In fact, if the church has no authority, then these people without a church are the most honest of all Christians.

Furthermore, is there then an expiration date on the necessity of Baptism, or of Belief and is it enough to say that God is Love and Mercy and that nobody will suffer loss and that all will find heavenly beatitude? For we can refer to Scripture and interpret our new form of Christianity based upon our personal preferences. For me; I think I very much like the idea that we all go to heaven and nobody will suffer. But others are free to make up their own minds and who is to say that they are wrong. Certainly not an authority that had a very short expiration date which died with the apostles. So, Who am I to judge?

It is very alluring to think that because we hold certain truths in common that the churches are basically the same. And without a clear authority that is the only conclusion one could rationally come up with if we are to believe that Christianity is not a hoax even though Christ did renege on His promises to the apostles and to the Church He founded.

So I chose the Catholic Church and think that it is still the Church that continues to have the authority that was vested in Peter and the apostles. For if it no longer exists then Christianity in my mind no longer is believable and is totally devoid of any veracity that it may once have had. In fact it is proven logically to have been a sham.

Thank God, however, the dogmas and teachings of the Catholic faith are never overturned and continue to operate from their inclusion into our body of faith, until the end of time as we know it. We do not one day wake up and decide that contraception is now OK, or that same sex marriage is now acceptable. We argue these issues and there are some who would love to change our teachings; but alas, they can’t. It is the protection of the authoritative nature that I would have expected the Church founded by Christ to have built into Her very DNA. And that is why I am Catholic. For without this assurance I am not sure that I would believe anything at all.

Related

Post navigation

32 thoughts on “Did the Church which Christ Established Come with an Expiration Date?”

Yes – the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church endure until the end – it’s just that there aren’t any Catholics who actually take them seriously (except perhaps for you and one or two others – all of whom contribute to ‘Watchtower’ blog).

I talk from experience – I live in a Catholic country. When I look in disbelief at some of the things going on and I say, ‘but the Catholic church says x and the extreme Catholic party were elected’, my wife replies, ‘but you always make the mistake of assuming that Catholics take seriously what the church says.’

This disconnect – they’re Catholic because they were born and baptised into it, it gives them social cohesion and makes them feel good – but just so long as nobody asks them to believe and act on any particular instruction given by the RCC – explains an awful lot.

While I don’t completely agree with you here, I think part of it is the old divide. You and I come from the Northern European/Protestant tradition, where we don’t have all that many laws, but we expect them to be obeyed.

In some way, the Catholic Church echoes the Southern European ethic, it has many laws, and a lot of them go unobserved. A considerable difference in outlook, really.

Yes, sadly Jock the Catholic Church (and many other denominations as well) are in a crisis. I think it could have been avoided and others think not. But even if most Catholics are simply using the title (like many a Univeristy is doing) it won’t change the doctrines . . . so there is that hope in Christ that the Church will prevail against the gates of hell. I believe the gates of hell have been very active for some time now. I hope, with the Grace of God, that we will turn this around soon.

Bosco’s comment about his mother reminds me of Lady Marchmain. Keeping Christ on her mind all day long. I would say if it gives Dave or any comfort, I am reminded by what Sebastian says to Charles that those who lash out at his mother are really lashing out at God.

Jock, I would say there’s more concerned Catholics out there; however, I am disheartened at your comment of the apathy of those Catholics in a Catholic country. I see apathy in the states from cultural Catholics, yet… I simply think that they are simply been beaten down by liberalism, materialism, or both.

Many different types of Christians are beaten down, The pagans have been beaten back before, however, in those days there wasn’t the advent of Technology, the internet, etc. poisoning their minds. The positive part of me thinks that we have equal access, but I don’t know.

I am an optimistic soul, I may debate with the traditionalist of my faith one day, but be shoulder to shoulder with them the next day defending our faith. I suppose I hope the state of my Church is not as bad as the state as some have declared.

Drat the luck, I wanted to be the first to reply.
Youre rite, the lay catholics just sit thru the sermon and go home. They don’t give it a second thought till its time to go renew their salvation. To be fair, the same with the prot congregations. But my grandma kept Jesus on the front of her mind all day long. Im aware he is there every second of the day.

My grandparents were raised by my great grandparents. I knew my great grandmother. Boy oh boy. Puritan as John Smith. Whoooo, I wouldn’t want to be raised by her and her husband whom I didn’t know, but heard stories about. Yes buddy buddy.

Good brother Servus, the other day you said …yes, there have been wicked popes, but its the office that we are to respect. My thought was that could you just have the office without a man in it? I mean, if its just the office that matters, why put some ungodly man in it?
So, this Authority of the CC you speak of, it is independent of the men who staff the catholic org? So, “the church” is independent of humans, and has authority by itself?
The NT definition of “the church” is the sum total of believers.
For example; the CC retained its authority even thru the “Reign of the Harlots”? Its not the people who rule the Church, its something else that continues on thru the years that gives the CC its authority.
One more thing….does adding things to the catholic religion constitute change? Many things have been added to Catholicism. I think someone told me that adding things is considerd revealing things, not changing things.

An office is always independent of the man who holds the office. Whether our president is a good man or a throrougly evil man he still has the power of the office until he is removed. The same is true of any office of authority.

I don’t mean to get philosophical, but the people of god had god as the leader. But then they wanted to be like other peoples and have a leader or king. Then they got nothing but trouble from their fearless leaders. I am not of this world. Im in it but not of it. I don’t want no human leader. I don’t even vote.

The OC take the view that the office exists, but they, like many, dissent from the view that it gives Rome some kind of universal jurisdiction. Not one of the first seven councils were convened by the Pope, and there is not the slightest evidence anyone thought they needed his imprimatur – indeed we know from the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon, that no one even told Rome about the Constantinople council of 381 which revived the Creed.

The real argument is not whether the office exists and inheres in Peter’s successor – that is really a western obsession which does not interest a large portion of the world’s Christians, it is whether the Pope has exceeded the limits of the office as it existed in the early Church. Many of us think that is clearly so. Obviously RC’s do not, or they would not be RCs.

The authority of the Pope has been used rather sparingly. So how they have exceeded their limits of the office is difficult for me to swallow. Now had you said that papolatry is always a danger in the Church it certainly is. It is not sanctioned by the Church. As the article in First Things that NML sent you a link, it was shown how Paul VI went overboard in an inclusion to the VII texts and he was soundly rejected.

It really doesn’t matter that there are arguments around Rome trying to obtain obedience on matters of the Faith. They either have that right due to the possession of authority or they do not. If not, then the promises of Christ are not worth the paper it is written on. If so, then it seems that more attention might be paid to the teachings that the Church binds us to. For they either can bind or loose or they can’t.

The Pope had no authority to call an ecumenical council in the early church; none of the first seven were so convened – when did he take it upon himself to do this and why? The Pope had no universal jurisdiction in the early church, he now claims to have it; this is a novelty in terms of the early practice and the practice before 1054. The Pope has declared things to be dogma which the early Church did not count as such. In all these ways he has taken on more than was inherent in his office.

The practice of the early Church is clear, the Pope did not exercise this authority, he now claims to. This is a novelty. It seems that novelties which Rome likes, and OK with you, novelties this Pope likes are not. Either your Pope has the right to do what he does or his authority is not what you seem to be claiming for him here. I read the First Things piece and thought it good.

You can ask him yourself when you meet him in the next life, Jess. I didn’t see any restrictions that Christ laid upon Peter’s abilities to bind and loose. I would hope that the Holy Spirit inspired him to do so but it might have been decided without the help of the Holy Spirit. But that is not to say that the Holy Spirit will then abandon His role to protect the teachings of the faith. Did you expect that the act of the Holy Spirit ‘leading’ the Church into all Truth would be given in a flash to the Church immediately. If it had, we would have had folks writing the Scripture and writing the Dogma from the day after Pentecost. All of it would have been done. It is a process of being led, dear friend, that we expect the Holy Spirit to be doing within the Church. It is like mathematics. All of the equations to prove things are already in existence. It is only up to the mathematicians to discover these things.

Do you propose that we should strip out what the Holy Spirit has built up in the Church and return to a primitive state? I trust the dogmatic teachings and the Catechism because Christ has guaranteed it. If you don’t then pick and choose as you see fit. All I’m saying is that if that is what I would have to do, then I would not be anything unless I devised my own Church; probably full of naughty things or else one where I didn’t have to do anything at all.

The Pope has a right to his personal opinions as does anyone else. He also has a responsibility to guard the deposit of faith. If he does that which weakens, confuses or confounds that deposit of faith then he has no right at all. He cannot simply pronounce something that will overturn defined teaching. As the First Things article made clear it is Christ’s Church not just a single pope at a single time or a single group of bishops at a single time. He can change practices and create confusion but he will never be able to proclaim a change in the teaching. It will be left to others to straighten out the messes that he creates if that is what he does.

I think your questions must come from being so bound up in one form of ecclesiology that you can’t see that there are other ecclesiologies.

I know you used to be a Protestant, and it seems to me you have a single paradigm, possibly based on that, for what it is not to be a member of the RCC. It is quite foreign to me and I do not recognised the idea of making my own church.

The Church I am part of has been in these islands since abut the second century, with a continuous existence. It has the threefold Apostolic Ministry and the sacraments. In the sixteenth century, like so many Catholic communities, it asked Rome to reform itself, and Rome, alas, refused and insisted it was beyond reform. we, like others, carried on without it. The gifts of binding and loosing were given to all the Apostles and their successors. There have always been a variety of views, from the beginning, as to the role of the Bishop of Rome. Obviously the main proponent of his having universal jurisdiction is him, and so any problems you have in the RCC are for you to sort out – we here gave up the attempt a long time ago, finding Rome distant, full of intrigue and cabals. Reading much of what you and others here write, I can only say you describe and complain as we did. I hope you will all be able to stay in communion with Rome as, for you, everything depends on it.

For the Anglican Church, the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely nothing depends on Rome and its claims

Catholics keep repeating….”the church Christ founded”, over and over again. Well, then if its the church Christ founded, and im not a member, im not a member of His body, his body being the “church”. The newest way to keep from sounding exclusive is to deny CC ever taught that there is no salvation outside the CC. They have come up with baptism of desire and other flowery words to allow everyone non catholic into heaven.
Now , if I was catholic and went thru all the hoops and did all the requirements, id be pissed that now the CC is saying that I didn’t have to do all that to receive salvation.

I told you what happens to folks like you: you become your own church; or more precisely unchurched. I think that is valid since you cannot accept an authority other than what you think you are getting directly from God. But it is not the way Scripture describes the Church.

We invent nothing, we proclaim that which the Holy Spirit moves the Church to proclaim; with the same authority that Christ gave Her. That the Church leaves ‘final judgement’ to Christ is something I thought you would agree with. That Christ only founded one Church for our salvation is something that I knew you wouldn’t agree with though we see no others being created by Christ. So yes, salvation outside of the Church is a crap shoot. Christ will certainly save as many souls as He can. But that His intention was to provide a Church led by the Holy Spirit for this sole purpose is obvious to me. If it exists (and it appears to me that it does) . . . then you must decide whether you want to join it; since Christ created it for all of mankind’s salvation. If you think that you know better than what Christ provided, I wish you well and will pray for your soul that He might also find for you a place in heaven.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

So the Berean Jews were of more noble character, because they didn’t simply swallow what the apostles had to tell them hook line and sinker – No; they measured it up against Scripture. Scripture was the ‘bouncer at the door’.

Note that the apostle Paul like this. He disapproved when people simply soaked up what he had to say; he approved when they approached him with a degree of healthy scepticism and only accepted his teaching when it was clear to them that it measured up against Scripture.

Scripture tells me what to think about what The Church says; not the other way round.

Jock, John also said that Jesus did many other things; were every one of them to be written, the world could not contain the books (John 21:25). Matthew said to take it to the Church (Mt 18:17-18). Luke says he that hears you hears Me (Lk 10:16). And they held steadfastly to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42). All which point to the authority of the apostles, i.e. the Church, long before the NT canon. And for most of recorded history, most could not read, so they relied on what was preached, not scripture.

That’s rite. If I became catholic id be a traditionalist, if that means going with good ol time Catholicism. No salvation outside the bosom of the catholic church. Why would I bother joining if I could get salvation from just anywhere?
Anyway, if Catholicism is Christs body, them im a catholic. Saints be with us.

Dave, is it accurate to say (as you do in the second to last paragraph) that you chose the Catholic Church (as Bosco likes to say, that you were religion shopping)? My experience is more that once a certain understanding is attained, a certain love sets in that cannot be denied. There is a difference there somehow, sorry I am not better able to explain my point. Once certain teachings are accepted as true, one is compelled to become Catholic. I understand that this is not true for everyone who reads this blog (and I have respect their deep Christian faith), but it does seem to be a familiar experience among Catholic converts to be compelled – out of love – to join the Church.

It is a fair question Grandpa, and yes, after reading the teachngs of the mystical saints (or actually in the middle of Ascent of Mt. Carmel) that I actually had an experience that could not be denied. I turned to my wife and told her that I thought I was Catholic but that I needed to find out if this Catholicism still existed. So I began reading the Catechisms from before VII and much, much more. I was compelled as you say, once I came to agree that the Church did still exists as it had in the days of John of the Cross etc. but was quite aware that it was in a fight for its life against Modernism. I joined with eyes open to the fight and grateful to be given the grace or calling to the Church. No price is too great to pay for the privilege.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris